Media makes people lose contact with real life. Do you agree or disagree?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
Claims that modern media disconnects people from real life are common as digital platforms expand. However, I largely disagree with this view, because media does not inherently erode real-world engagement. Instead, its effects depend on patterns of use and social context. When consumed critically, media can clearly complement offline relationships, inform daily decisions, and strengthen civic awareness.
First, media often deepens contact with reality by broadening access to information and by facilitating meaningful interaction. News, educational content, and community forums generally connect individuals to local events and public debates they might otherwise miss. For example, social media groups frequently organise neighbourhood support or volunteering. Consequently, online communication translates into tangible social participation, and this shows a positive effect.
Admittedly, excessive or uncritical consumption can distract users from immediate surroundings, particularly through constant entertainment and algorithmic feeds. However, this problem largely reflects poor self-regulation rather than an unavoidable consequence of media itself. Moreover, with clear boundaries, such as limiting screen time and prioritising purposeful use, individuals can certainly prevent detachment while retaining practical benefits from technology and education.
In conclusion, I disagree that media inevitably causes people to lose touch with reality. When used selectively and responsibly, it undoubtedly enhances knowledge, supports social connection, and encourages real-world involvement. Therefore, the challenge lies in how media is managed, not in its existence, and this makes disengagement a matter of choice rather than destiny.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.